Amendment Text: S.Amdt.17 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (01/13/2015)

This Amendment appears on page S189 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages S184-S197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.


                            Amendment No. 2

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I call up my amendment No. 
2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for herself, Mr. 
     Hoeven, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Risch, Mr. Lee, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
     Daines, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Portman, 
     Mr. Alexander, and Mrs. Capito, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be suspended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Keystone XL Pipeline 
     Approval Act''.

     SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.

       (a) In General.--TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. may 
     construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and 
     cross-border facilities described in the application filed on 
     May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of 
     State (including any subsequent revision to the pipeline 
     route within the State of Nebraska required or authorized by 
     the State of Nebraska).
       (b) Environmental Impact Statement.--The Final Supplemental 
     Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of 
     State in January 2014, regarding the pipeline referred to in 
     subsection (a), and the environmental analysis, consultation, 
     and review described in that document (including appendices) 
     shall be considered to fully satisfy--
       (1) all requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (2) any other provision of law that requires Federal agency 
     consultation or review (including the consultation or review 
     required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a))) with respect to the pipeline and 
     facilities referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Permits.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued 
     before the date of enactment of this Act for the pipeline and 
     cross-border facilities referred to in subsection (a) shall 
     remain in effect.
       (d) Judicial Review.--Except for review in the Supreme 
     Court of the United States, the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have 
     original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for 
     the review of an order or action of a Federal agency 
     regarding the pipeline and cross-border facilities described 
     in subsection (a), and the related facilities in the United 
     States, that are approved by this Act (including any order 
     granting a permit or right-of-way, or any other agency action 
     taken to construct or complete the project pursuant to 
     Federal law).
       (e) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act 
     alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary 
     to secure access from an owner of private property to 
     construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described 
     in subsection (a).
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I am pleased we are at this point in 
time

[[Page S185]]

when we can start debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have had some 
good conversation on this floor while we have worked through procedural 
issues. I appreciate that we have been able to avoid a midnight vote, 
that we were able to work out an agreement. I thank my colleague and 
the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, for her assistance in getting us 
to this point, where we, during the daylight hours, can begin debate on 
amendments. These amendments, I think, are particularly timely and 
particularly important to where we are today from an economic 
perspective, from an energy perspective, and from an energy security 
perspective.
  Keystone XL fits in with that. In front of us is the first amendment 
to the Keystone XL Pipeline, S. 1, and it is in the nature of a 
committee substitute. What I will assure Members is that the substitute 
we have in front of us is almost a mirror image of the bill we reported 
from the energy committee just last week. We reported it on a 
bipartisan basis. We had good discussion at that point in time.
  But we have in front of us that substitute amendment. When we look to 
the amendment itself, it is pretty simple. We are truly talking about a 
two-page bill, a bill that is clear in content, a bill that is very 
readable in terms of what it does and what it does not do. Again, it 
spans just over two pages--pretty wide font, pretty wide margins. One 
can read it in a couple of minutes--and better yet, understand it.
  That is because the bill itself is very simple. What this measure 
does is approve the cross-border permit that is needed to construct the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. It does this with important provisions. It fully 
protects private property rights. It requires all State and local 
obligations be met, including those related to siting. There has been 
some discussion that somehow or other the Senate is engaging in 
routing, engaging in siting. This bill does not approve a pipeline 
route. We are not a planning board. Our bill only approves the 
pipeline's cross-border permit. It only does that because we have been 
waiting for 6 years for this cross-border permit.
  Some have suggested this is somehow some big giveaway. There is no 
subsidy in this bill. It is not a giveaway. It does not evade any 
regulations. It does not preempt any environmental study. It will not 
cost taxpayers a single dollar. Again, I would encourage my colleagues 
to look critically at the language of this bill. What this bill does is 
authorize a cross-border permit.
  There has been a lot of discussion about the jobs created and the 
environmental pros and cons on both sides. We have had good, strong 
debate already, just as we have moved through the procedural process of 
this. But what I think is important for us as a body to appreciate is 
the point we are at now, the point where we as Members can take this 
simple, straightforward bill and offer amendments we believe would make 
it better or enhance it.
  As we go forward, I am encouraging Members on both sides to bring 
their amendments forward. Let us have the give and take, the back and 
forth for which the Senate was once so famous. I have been asked: How 
are you going to handle amendments on the floor? Is it going to be a 
situation where the majority determines what the minority will 
introduce, what we will have an opportunity to debate and decide?
  That is not how we are handling amendments on this bill. The majority 
leader has promised a full debate. He has said: It is not unlimited. We 
are not going to be on this for months, but we are going to give 
Members an opportunity to speak to the issues of the day, the issues of 
the day that are so important to our Nation's economy.
  The Presiding Officer comes from an energy-producing State, as do I. 
We know the significance of energy jobs that come to our States and our 
local economy. We know the independence that comes when we are not 
reliant on others, particularly others who wish us ill, for a resource 
that powers our country.
  We are seeing firsthand the benefits of good energy production 
throughout the entire country. So why would we not want to allow for a 
piece of beneficial infrastructure, a piece of infrastructure to cross 
a border from our closest friend and ally in Canada, moving a product 
to our refineries in the gulf coast where they are set up to handle 
this type of crude oil.
  There has been a lot of discussion that this is just going to be a 
transference of oil from the north in Canada through the United States 
and exported to the rest of the world. But I think if we look to the 
facts that are laid out in the State Department's report, in their 
environmental assessment, we appreciate the fact that it makes no sense 
to use the United States just as a conduit, when our refineries, those 
refineries that are designed to handle the heavy crude, will be in a 
position to refine that crude for our benefit in this country, for 
those in Canada who are looking to again move their product.
  What we are effectively going to be able to do is replace what we are 
currently receiving from Venezuela, which provides us with that heavy 
crude currently, which we refine in the gulf coast areas--in those 
refineries we will be able to replace that with oil from our friend and 
ally, Canada. I do not know about the Presiding Officer, but I would 
much rather have a relationship with Canada than Venezuela.
  Again, the benefits, the merits of this legislation are very 
substantive. Keep in mind, this is not a case of first impression. This 
is not the first pipeline we have crossing the United States-Canadian 
border. There are 19 cross-border pipelines currently operating today. 
So as we work to develop not only a relationship around our energy, I 
think it is important to recognize the relationship we have with our 
friends to the north is important as well.
  One of the issues we will see come forward for discussion on the 
floor is the environmental aspects of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the 
oil sands from which they stem. We will have an opportunity to discuss 
the issue of exports and the significance of our energy exports, in 
terms of the benefits to our economy, trade perspective, balance of 
payments, the significance of that, and the opportunities we have in 
other areas related to energy, energy efficiency.
  I know my friend and colleague from Ohio wishes to speak to an 
amendment he will propose today. But this is a long time in the making 
for us to not only have the chance to talk energy but the opportunity 
for us to vote on energy-related amendments.

  I have much I wish to relay and convey in response to some of the 
comments that have been made by colleagues on this floor in the past 
couple days. We will have an opportunity to speak directly.
  As was noted in the agreement, we will have this measure in front of 
us. We will put some amendments forward this afternoon. We will not be 
voting on any amendments today nor will we be voting on any amendments 
on Friday, but we will have an opportunity for good, concerted 
discussion on Friday and going into next week.
  On behalf of the majority leader, I have been asked to announce that 
the next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday, January 20.


                            Amendment No. 2

  But what that allows us is an opportunity again, beginning today, 
beginning now, to encourage Members to come forward with their 
amendments and based on the agreement we have outlined--two on the 
Republican side today, two on the Democratic side today--get those out 
there, get them on the table, get them up, let's talk about them. We 
will have the opportunity on Friday and will do more of the same on 
Tuesday. Then we can actually start moving through a process that I 
hope is good, robust, and encouraging--encouraging, not only for the 
American public--but also encouraging to members of this body.
  I think it will be good for us in the Senate to get back to a habit 
of advancing amendments, of allowing the floor managers to work 
together to decide a process, to lay out initiatives, to have the back 
and forth, to take some tough votes--it is what we do or what we should 
do--and to get back to what we know to be regular order.
  I want that to be a terminology all Members understand instead of 
just some who have been around for more years than others. Being able 
to get back to regular process feels pretty good today. I am pleased to 
begin this debate under regular process.
  With that, Senator Portman was on the floor as we began our unanimous

[[Page S186]]

consent request, but I understand we will defer to Senator Markey to 
first bring up his amendment and then turn to Senator Portman for his.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                  Amendment No. 13 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. MARKEY. I seek recognition, pursuant to the consent agreement, to 
call up amendment No. 13.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. MARKEY], for himself 
     and Ms. Baldwin, proposes an amendment numbered 13 to 
     amendment No. 2.

  Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To ensure that oil transported through the Keystone XL 
    pipeline into the United States is used to reduce United States 
                   dependence on Middle Eastern oil)

       At the end of section 2, add the following:
       (f) Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), none of the 
     crude oil and bitumen transported into the United States by 
     the operation of the Keystone XL pipeline under the authority 
     provided by subsection (a), and none of the refined petroleum 
     fuel products originating from that crude oil or bitumen, may 
     be exported from the United States.
       (2) Waivers authorized.--The President may waive the 
     limitation described in paragraph (1) if--
       (A) the President determines that a waiver is in the 
     national interest because it--
       (i) will not lead to an increase in domestic consumption of 
     crude oil or refined petroleum products obtained from 
     countries hostile to United States' interests or with 
     political and economic instability that compromises energy 
     supply security;
       (ii) will not lead to higher costs to refiners who purchase 
     the crude oil than the refiners would pay for crude oil in 
     the absence of the waiver; and
       (iii) will not lead to higher gasoline costs to consumers 
     than consumers would pay in the absence of the waiver;
       (B) an exchange of crude oil or refined product provides 
     for no net loss of crude oil or refined product consumed 
     domestically; or
       (C) a waiver is necessary under the Constitution, a law, or 
     an international agreement.
  Mr. MARKEY. If I may speak briefly on the amendment, I thank the 
chair of the energy committee. I thank her for her courtesy and the 
Senator from Ohio as well.
  While we will not be having the full debate at this time on the 
Senate floor, we are in fact beginning with a critical issue, an issue 
that relates to climate change, American energy independence, the 
impact that legislation can have upon consumers--drivers in our country 
in terms of how much they are paying at the pump.
  It deals with actually the mission of young men and women in our 
country who go overseas in order to protect tankers of oil that are 
brought back to our country.
  So the first question that will be asked in this debate is whether 
the oil, which is going to be delivered through this pipeline from 
Canada, is going to stay in the United States of America.
  The Canadian tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil in the world.
  The pipeline, similar to a straw, is going to be built through the 
United States down to Port Arthur, TX, a tax-free export zone. You 
don't have to have an MBA from business school to figure out what this 
3-by-5 card looks like.
  It is something that basically says, since the price of a barrel of 
oil on the global market is $17 higher than what the Canadians can get 
for the tar sands oil--that they want to get it out of the country, 
which is why it is going to end in Port Arthur, TX, an export zone.
  What the amendment I am going to be making on the floor of the Senate 
says is that if the oil is drilled for in Canada, put through a 
pipeline in the United States, that oil cannot be exported, that oil 
stays in the United States, and that the promise of energy independence 
in our country is in fact what this agenda is all about. Because 
otherwise the United States is taking all of these environmental risks, 
the planet is taking all of these environmental risks, but the economic 
benefits are not flowing to consumers, drivers in the United States who 
finally feel some relief at the pump--that they are not feeling--that 
they are being tipped upside down and having money shaken out of their 
pockets on a daily basis.
  The oil companies have made many claims about this pipeline. They 
have said it was for North American energy security, but it is about 
exporting oil. They have said it is about reducing prices, but it is 
about getting the highest profits. They said it would not harm the 
environment but it in fact will worsen climate change and risk 
dangerous oilspills.
  They have been trying for 6 years to get this pipeline built, even 
when it is clear that we do not need it. So this is the Keystone 
``export'' pipeline--the KXL.
  So this first amendment that we will be debating is one that says: 
No, you cannot export it. We must keep that oil in the United States. 
We must ensure that it is in fact something that benefits the American 
people. Otherwise, the Canadians are just ripping this oil, this dirty 
oil from their soil in Canada and putting it into a pipeline that then 
will be exported, which will only ensure that the planet gets hotter, 
that it becomes more dangerous for future generations.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important debate. The planet is 
running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to 
engage in preventive care.
  If this action takes place, and all we are doing is allowing Canadian 
oil to go through our country and out the other end, then we haven't 
done anything for the American consumer or for the planet.
  I look forward to a more complete debate on this issue, and I yield 
back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                   Amendment No. 3 to Amendment No. 2

                (Purpose: To promote energy efficiency)

  Mr. PORTMAN. I rise and call up amendment No. 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman], for himself and Mrs. 
     Shaheen, proposes an amendment numbered 3 to amendment No. 2.

  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, January 12, 2015, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Murkowski for 
giving me this opportunity. She spoke earlier about the fact that we 
are going to talk about Keystone in an open process, going to allow 
amendments, which seems very normal, but in the Senate it hasn't been 
over the past several years.
  This amendment is one that results to energy efficiency. I strongly 
support the underlying bill, and we will talk about it in a moment, but 
I also support the strategy of saying let's produce more energy, but 
also let's use the energy that we have more efficiently. I believe 
those are complementary, and I believe it is consistent with creating 
more jobs in this country, making our businesses more competitive, and 
improving the environment. So I appreciate her willingness to allow us 
to move forward with this amendment.
  This energy efficiency amendment we are talking about is a key part 
of the ``all of the above'' energy strategy that a lot of us discuss, 
whether it is nuclear, renewable, oil, coal or gas, efficiency ought to 
be a part of it.
  It is an amendment that is the result of a lot of years of work by 
Senator Shaheen, who was mentioned earlier, myself but also Senator 
Hoeven, Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, and many other Members of this 
body.
  Our cosponsors this afternoon are Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, 
Senator Bennet, Senator Collins, Senator Gardner, and Senator Manchin.
  This is legislation that is clearly bipartisan and legislation that 
shouldn't be controversial. It takes part of the broader Portman-
Shaheen legislation that has already passed the House of 
Representatives and brings it to the floor.
  This is also legislation that has passed the committees in the Senate 
and the committees in the House--energy committees--with wide 
bipartisan margins. Also, it was on the floor of the House last year 
and passed with a vote of 375 to 76, including with the support of the 
Presiding Officer. I thank the Presiding Officer.

[[Page S187]]

  There are four provisions and they are all pretty straightforward. 
None of them has a mandate, none of them has a cost curve. The CBO, the 
Congressional Budget Office, has told us they don't score. All of them 
are voluntary.
  The first one is an important one. It is called Tenant Star. It 
establishes a voluntary market-driven approach to try and align the 
interests of commercial business owners and their tenants. This is 
important because a lot of the real estate folks would like to have the 
ability to say this has the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. It is 
like an Energy Star seal of approval that enables people to know it is 
an energy-efficient building.
  This is broadly supported in part because it is voluntary. It is not 
a mandate, but it will help us in reducing energy consumption.
  The second provision is one that is very timely. This is one that a 
lot of us have worked on over the years. Senator Hoeven has talked 
about this. We talk sometimes in the Senate about the unintended 
consequences of regulations. This would be a great example.
  Here we have the Department of Energy promoting a regulation that if 
we don't stop it now will actually make our country less energy 
efficient. It is unintended, perhaps, but it is something we need to 
deal with legislatively now.
  If we don't, then we are not going to be able to help save these 
particular products, which are water heaters. Around the country there 
are hundreds of electric cooperatives that operate voluntary programs 
and use what we call electric resistance water heaters.
  They use them to store energy at night, and then during a peak demand 
period they don't have to turn on these electric water heaters. So it 
is actually an energy efficiency effort.
  It is the kind of grassroots, on-the-ground innovation we want to see 
more of. But this regulation that we have to stop--from the Department 
of Energy--establishes a new standard for water heaters that 
effectively undermines this program. How? Because it makes it 
impossible for these companies to produce these kinds of water heaters 
that the co-ops are using. So the legislation exempts these water 
heaters from business standards, allowing these co-op programs that are 
good for energy efficiency to continue.
  People probably heard from their rural electric co-op--if they are a 
Member of this body--on this issue because it is important to them that 
it be handled and handled now. If it is not, then these companies will 
stop producing these water heaters and they will not be able to 
continue these programs.
  The third provision has to do with the Federal Government. Basically 
it says the Federal Government ought to practice what it preaches.
  The Federal Government talks a lot about energy efficiency. Yet it is 
probably the biggest energy user in the world and probably one of the 
most inefficient. This says simply that Federal agencies have to 
coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget, with the 
Department of Energy, and with the Environmental Protection Agency to 
develop an implementation strategy that includes best practices, 
measurements, and verifications for the maintenance, purchase, and use 
of energy-efficient and energy-saving information and technology.
  IT has been a source of great inefficiency in the government, and 
this legislation simply says let's require these Federal agencies to 
actually clean up their act so they will be more energy efficient in 
the area of information technology.
  Again, it is a nonpartisan approach. It is one that has been 
supported by both sides of the aisle.
  Finally, along the same lines, the fourth provision requires that 
federally leased buildings without Energy Star labels benchmark and 
disclose their energy usage data. Again, these are not Federal 
buildings that have to report this information, but these are buildings 
that the Federal Government leases.
  So in effect all of us as taxpayers should have an interest in being 
sure that these leased buildings also have the energy efficiency 
provision to avoid wasting taxpayer money.
  I think these are very important provisions. These are not 
controversial provisions. I think they are consistent with the idea 
that, yes, let's produce more energy. Let's make sure we have the 
infrastructure to bring the energy to the consumer, but let's do it in 
a way where we are using more energy but also using it more 
efficiently.
  I hope we will see the kind of strong bipartisan support on the floor 
we have seen in the past on these provisions as they are part of this 
underlying legislation.
  I would like to talk for a moment about the underlying legislation. 
This is the Keystone XL Pipeline construction. It seems as if we have 
been talking about this forever. Frankly, we have. This has been going 
on for almost 7 years now, I believe. Think about that. This is just to 
get the approval of the pipeline--not to actually build it. Just to get 
the approval it has taken 7 years. It is time to stop talking about it 
and move forward on it.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline has taken almost 7 years. In comparison, we 
built the Hoover Dam in less than 5 years. The entire Empire State 
Building was constructed in 1 year and 45 days. In fact, the entire 
transcontinental railroad was constructed by hand in 6 years. So there 
is no reason we shouldn't move ahead on this.
  We have learned a thing or two about this Keystone XL Pipeline during 
this period of time we have been debating it, and everything we have 
learned leads us to the conclusion it just makes sense to move forward. 
We know we can do it safely. We know we can do it in an environmentally 
sound way. We know we can create thousands of good jobs during its 
construction. Yet as we stand here today, with the Keystone XL Pipeline 
a source of debate rather than a source of jobs, we are not moving the 
country forward. I think we have waited long enough.
  There has been debate before. I have heard it over the last couple of 
days and last week. Is this going to create jobs? Yes, it will. The 
State Department has said it will. The State Department is in the Obama 
administration, and they are the ones who tell us it is going to 
increase our economy by about $3 billion, increase the GDP of America, 
and also create more than 40,000 jobs during its construction--both 
through the actual building of the pipeline and through the sourcing of 
pipeline projects to American manufacturers.
  By the way, a bunch of those manufacturers are in my home State of 
Ohio. Ohio produces pipe. Ohio produces the kind of steel--the 
structural steel--that goes into the construction of the pipeline. Ohio 
also produces the monitors that go on this pipeline. We also produce 
other things, such as pumps and compressors. So this will create jobs 
in my home State of Ohio. I have toured these factories and talked to 
these workers. They are going to have the opportunity now to roll that 
steel, build these compressors and so on, and for them this is 
important too.
  Some of the critics of the pipeline have attempted to undermine these 
numbers by claiming the jobs related to the pipeline are not permanent. 
I don't know what to say about that except are any construction jobs 
permanent, by that definition? We certainly want construction jobs. 
This administration--the Obama administration--talks all the time about 
the need for more infrastructure projects to create more jobs. This is 
an infrastructure project. By some measure it may be the biggest 
infrastructure project in America over the next couple of years if we 
approve this thing. It will create not just jobs but good jobs. This is 
the kind of work we want to have more of in this country.
  This is a why a lot of labor unions, including the building trades, 
are excited about this, because they know it is going to be able to 
lower unemployment and get the people back to work who have lost their 
jobs.
  Others have expressed environmental concerns. Let's look at the 
facts. Let's look at the science. With every environmental study that 
has been conducted, the pipeline has passed. In fact, we know the 
pipeline is safer and more environmentally sound than the alternative. 
What is the alternative? What is happening now--it is transporting this 
oil by truck, transporting this oil by train. As we know, and as the 
CRS report has said, a lot of this oil actually doesn't even come from 
Canada. It comes from the Bakken. The Bakken is actually in America. It 
is in North Dakota and in other places. So some of

[[Page S188]]

that oil is now being moved by truck and train. It is better that it go 
by pipeline. It is more efficient, of course, and less costly, but it 
is also safer environmentally.
  Let's debate this issue. I am happy to do that, but let's try to 
stick to the facts. The fact is this thing just makes sense. For those 
who oppose it, I would ask: Why is it so different from all the other 
pipelines we have constructed in this country? In all our States we 
have pipelines. When we build this, it won't be the first pipeline to 
carry oil across international boundaries, by the way. It won't be the 
second or the third. It will actually be the 20th--the 20th pipeline to 
carry energy across international boundaries. It will be the fourth one 
to import oil--specifically oil from Canada.
  Just to give some idea of how the permitting process of XL has been, 
of the three other Canadian pipelines that have been approved, it took 
the Federal Government 15 months on one, another was 24 months, and 
another was 28 months. The permitting process for this one--the 
Keystone XL--has now dragged on for over 76 months and counting.
  So look, I have heard people on the floor say: What is the rush? Why 
are we rushing this? I don't think we are rushing. I think this makes 
sense. Just as we have approved other pipelines, we go through a 
process, and now we should have the ability to move forward on these 
jobs and the energy security that it provides.
  By the way, when this debate is over, we also need to think about our 
permitting system. To me, this is really an indictment of our entire 
permitting system in this country. We need to do something about it, 
where you simply can't get a project approved. And by the way, I am not 
just talking oil and gas projects. I am talking about other energy 
projects--solar projects. I am talking about siting windmills. I am 
talking about hydro projects.
  I first got involved in this issue because there was a hydro project 
on the Ohio River, of all places, that was being held up by Federal 
regulations. The folks who were trying to get this through came and 
said: We can't believe how complicated it is to get a permit from the 
Federal Government. As soon as we get one permit from one agency 
another agency comes in. They require it be done sequentially, and it 
is taking us forever, and we are losing investors. Those investors are 
going not just across the Ohio River to another State, they are going 
to another country because the Federal permitting system is so bad in 
this country.
  That is why I intend to introduce bipartisan legislation called the 
Federal Permitting Improvement Act. Senator McCaskill of Missouri is my 
cosponsor. We are hoping to bring that to the floor very soon too 
because the American government shouldn't be standing in the way of 
good projects, particularly these energy projects that are so 
important. The American Government shouldn't be standing in the way of 
good American jobs. That is exactly what is happening. We need to 
streamline the approval process. It can be done and be done in a 
bipartisan way.

  So it comes down to this. We hear a lot about an ``all of the above'' 
energy strategy in the Senate. Everyone seems to be for it. It is a 
position the American people support, by the way, overwhelmingly. I 
have been to the floor many times to express my support for an energy 
policy that includes everything from nuclear to oil, natural gas, 
renewables, coal, and of course, increased energy efficiency, as we 
talked about earlier. We will need all of those if we want to continue 
to see energy prices fall and to continue to see our reliance on 
dangerous and unstable parts of the world decline.
  An ``all of the above'' energy strategy includes the Keystone 
Pipeline and other projects like it. So if you want to say you support 
all of the above, you better support Keystone. If you don't support the 
pipeline, I think you have to explain to the American people why you 
stood in the way of 40,000 good-paying jobs, why you opposed a project 
that is more environmentally safe than the alternatives out there now, 
and you need to explain why you opposed an ``all of the above'' energy 
strategy that can keep prices low and help secure North American energy 
independence. That also affects our national security. For us not to be 
dependent on these volatile and dangerous parts of the world is good 
for our national security. Let's stop sending the money to the Mideast. 
Let us keep the money here in North America.
  Let's stop the delay. Let's make construction of this pipeline a 
reality. The American people are watching. We have all spent time in 
our States over the last month. We have all heard over and over again 
that the American people want us to work together. They want us to 
cooperate where we can, particularly on issues that relate to jobs and 
the economy and getting things moving in this country. I think this 
current legislation can be a model for how the Senate can operate and a 
sign that we have heard the message the voters sent in November.
  This final bill will be the model, as I said earlier, of an open 
process where people can come to the floor to debate, as I have today, 
and not just on the underlying legislation but on the amendments on 
energy efficiency. That is good. At the end of this process, it will 
likely contain some policies that I fully support. And by the way, the 
final bill will probably contain some policies I don't support, because 
that is what happens when you have an open process. People will be able 
to come out here, make their best argument, and people will vote yea or 
nay, depending on how they feel it affects them, their States, and 
their constituents. That is what is happening on the Senate floor, and 
that is a good thing for our country and a good thing for getting to 
the right policy.
  When the amendment process is complete, I believe we will have 
produced a bill that advances this goal of implementing a true ``all of 
the above'' energy policy, while creating more jobs for the American 
people and protecting our environment in better ways. That is what we 
all want, and that is why this legislation is a win for all Americans.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Paris Unity Rally

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, throughout history a single picture has 
revealed the political reality of the moment.
  Before we had photography, there were artist depictions of Caesar 
entering Rome, General Washington crossing the Delaware, and Napoleon 
crossing the Alps. When photography came, we could see the images that 
defined America's role in the pivotal moments of existential threats to 
our values, our faiths, and our way of life: Roosevelt and Churchill 
sitting beside Stalin in Tehran and later at Yalta, President Kennedy 
at the city hall in Berlin, and Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate.
  The pictures that define the moment, the pictures that are seared 
into our minds, images that stay with us throughout our life are all 
powerful, and they have the common theme and the common purpose of 
confirming America's essential leadership role in global affairs.
  In all of these examples and thousands of others, we can see the 
world looking on Americans with respect and with the expectation that 
we will be there at moments critical to the world's future--they are 
there not just to participate but there to lead where U.S. leadership 
is essential to the success of the endeavor.
  Today, possibly the most powerful image that evokes most clearly a 
new reality is this image right here. Here, we see many of the world's 
leaders of major nations--some of the most significant, influential 
leaders--walking arm-in-arm down a Paris boulevard as a united protest 
against the grotesque barbarism that threatens us all. The leaders of 
Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and even those who in other 
circumstances are not united, are united arm-in-arm, marching in front 
of literally millions of Europeans from France and other countries.
  Yet something is tragically missing. The most profound significance 
of this picture--which has been shown around the world and which has 
been seared

[[Page S189]]

into our minds as a defining moment--is that America is nowhere to be 
seen, looking at this picture, with the world's leaders, some 
diametrically opposed ideologically to each other but united here. And 
we are told that throughout the millions of people who were there, if 
there was the presence of an American representative, that person was 
not seen.
  If the world needs any further demonstration of America's decline and 
our growing irrelevance, it is this utter absence at this potentially 
defining moment of rallying the nations of the world to address this 
existential threat to the most basic of our values and our freedoms.
  It is not just an image problem, although the image itself carries 
the message, it is a substance problem.
  This group of world leaders and millions of others joined together in 
Paris last weekend to show the entire world that a threat to our 
principal freedoms is entirely unacceptable to us all and will be 
resisted by all of us, an unacceptable mortal threat to freedom of 
expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of 
the press.
  My friend and former colleague Joe Lieberman wrote a piece in today's 
Wall Street Journal that articulately defines this threat and how we 
must respond. In his piece, he wrote:

       In rapid order, the three attacks in France last week 
     showed more clearly than ever that the international movement 
     of violent Islamist extremism has declared war on Western 
     civilization's foundational values, which are embraced by so 
     many people throughout the world. The murders of police 
     officers, cartoonists and Jews were attacks against the 
     West's most central values and aspirations--the rule of law, 
     freedom of expression and freedom of religion. This radical 
     extremism will continue to threaten what we hold dear unless 
     it is fought and eventually defeated.

  Millions gathered not only because 16 people died so tragically, they 
also gathered because those who would pervert their faith in order to 
lure deluded young people into violent extremism must know that we will 
all oppose them no matter what it takes.
  So how can we reconcile this vital mission with America's utter 
absence? No excuses are sufficient. No apologies or explanations about 
bureaucratic ineptitude will be enough to undo the damage caused by our 
absence and depicted throughout the world.
  Some may say the President didn't attend because of security 
concerns. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan said, 
``Life is a security concern, you must do what's right.''
  Sadly, the President's absence is an accurate reflection of how this 
administration sees our role in the world. During the past year we have 
seen a long list of foreign policy disasters--the rise of the most 
potent and violent terrorist organization in history; the continued 
disintegration of Syria; American hostages beheaded in full public 
view; a resurgent Taliban conducting more attacks in Afghanistan; and 
the Government of Iraq losing control of a third of the country, 
including cities and provinces soaked with the blood of American 
troops. We have seen our old enemy Al Qaeda and its affiliates 
metastasize throughout the Middle East and north Africa to mount 
threats from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and now even France. We have seen 
the Islamic State mount media campaigns that have persuaded thousands 
of Americans, Europeans, and others to flock to their black banners. We 
have seen an ill-conceived and poorly prepared Middle East peace 
initiative collapse under the weight of unattainable expectations.
  All of these problems and many others--some colossal disasters--have 
been aggravated by U.S. policy failures. Those failures have come from 
a White House isolated in a wasteland of confusion. The Obama 
administration has no coherent strategy for dealing with the world 
other than, in a now famous paraphrase, ``Don't do stupid stuff.'' 
Shrouded in this fog of indecision and failures, is it any wonder that 
we could not find the vision to join with the rest of the world to show 
purpose in Paris?
  It is deeply ironic and appropriate that the events in Paris were all 
generated by the power of imagery--cartoons, no less. Those events have 
now produced this new imagery, a picture of global common action in 
which the United States is tragically absent.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are awaiting the arrival of 
Senator Franken to bring up the amendment relating to U.S.-made steel 
that is part of the agreement we entered into just a little bit ago 
that would allow for a series of amendments to be brought forward to 
the floor. The first was my substitute amendment to S. 1; Senator 
Markey has brought forward his amendment No. 13; Senator Portman, his 
energy efficiency bill.
  What I would like to advise Members is that these are the matters 
pending before the body at this point in time. We certainly welcome 
debate on these issues.
  Obviously, energy efficiency is very key to any energy debate. The 
aspect of export is one also that is worthy of discussion and, I hope, 
good debate on both sides as we go forward.
  I would encourage Members to speak not only to these issues, but if 
there are other issues they would like to have brought to the floor--
while we won't be in a position to allow other Members to offer their 
amendments at this time under this agreement, there is certainly plenty 
of time to be talking about them.
  Prior to the entry of the agreement, Senator Sanders came to the 
floor and spoke about his intention to offer an amendment at a later 
point in time.
  I again invite Members to be engaged, to be part of this open 
amendment process we are part of. I think for some it is new and it may 
take a little bit of getting used to, but that is a good thing. It is a 
good thing because these are areas that are worthy of debate on the 
Senate floor. When we are talking about jobs, when we are talking about 
our energy security, when we are talking about the strength of our 
economy, it is always timely to have this debate.
  I will again remind colleagues that our next opportunity to discuss 
these issues will be Friday morning, when we will be in session to take 
them up.
  I look forward to more discussion from across the aisle.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 17 to Amendment No. 2

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Franken, I call 
up his amendment No. 17.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] for Mr. Franken, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 17 to amendment No. 2.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To requie the use of iron, steel, and manufactured goods 
 produced in the United States in the construction of the Keystone XL 
                        Pipeline and facilities)

       After section 2, insert the following:

     SEC. __. USE OF UNITED STATES IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED 
                   GOODS.

       (a) Limitation.--Subject to subsection (b), to the maximum 
     extent consistent with the obligations of the United States 
     under international trade agreements, none of the iron, 
     steel, or manufactured goods used in the construction of the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline and facilities approved by this Act may 
     be produced outside of the United States.
       (b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     extent that the President finds that--
       (1) iron, steel, and the applicable manufactured goods are 
     not produced in the United States in sufficient and 
     reasonably available quantities with a satisfactory quality; 
     or
       (2) inclusion of iron, steel, or any manufactured good 
     produced in the United States will increase the cost of the 
     iron, steel, or any manufactured good used in the Pipeline 
     and facilities by more than 25 percent.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, we have made some progress with 
proceeding to this very important issue and Members are obviously 
coming to the floor to talk about their amendments and offer their 
viewpoints on this legislation.
  I would just point out that I hope we have a chance to consider some 
of the

[[Page S190]]

other amendments we have been talking about, the issue of whether 
companies in the tar sands business should be paying into the oilspill 
liability trust fund. We talked earlier today about how the oilspill 
liability trust fund which U.S. companies are required to pay into and 
is critical for cleanup. I want to add some documents to the Record of 
this case we had in Kalamazoo where the company may have hit its cap 
and where it may--for that Kalamazoo spill on tar sands--be asking the 
oilspill liability trust fund to actually recoup the benefits they had 
to pay out.
  To me this is a very important issue. Here is a company where we have 
tar sands spilling into the Kalamazoo River and actually costing, I 
think, something like $1.2 billion, and instead of this company paying 
into the trust fund and paying for costs on this, they basically are 
going to take money that U.S. companies paid into the trust fund and be 
recouped because of this. So I just want to get this right, and I hope 
we can work with our colleagues on another amendment on that process.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that 
just appeared in the paper from the AP about how TransCanada is said to 
offer landowners a price for their land in Nebraska at which point if 
they don't come to an agreement by this Friday the company can use 
eminent domain to take the land.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From Associated Press, Jan. 13, 2015]

      Attorney: Landowners Still Have Options in Pipeline Dispute

                           (By Grant Schulte)

       Lincoln, NE (AP).--Nebraska opponents of the Keystone XL 
     oil pipeline will continue to fight the project, even though 
     the state's highest court allowed its planned route to stand, 
     an attorney for the group said Monday.
       Omaha attorney Dave Domina said landowners on the route can 
     challenge the project again once pipeline developer 
     TransCanada uses eminent domain to get access to their 
     property. Once the company begins that process, Domina said 
     individual landowners can fight the company in court battles 
     that could take two to three years with appeals.
       In addition, Domina said the landowners could file a new 
     legal challenge against the law itself, using landowners who 
     live directly on the route. Or they could lobby Nebraska 
     lawmakers to try to change the law. It's too early to know 
     which approach they'll choose, Domina said.
       ``This decision has simply been punted down the road, to be 
     answered another day,'' Domina said in an interview. ``It's 
     up to TransCanada to make the next move.''
       The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday ruled against three 
     landowners who sought to overturn Nebraska's 2012 pipeline-
     siting law, which they say violates the state constitution. 
     Not all of the plaintiffs owned property along the route, but 
     the group sought legal standing as Nebraska taxpayers 
     challenging an illegal use of state money to review the 
     project. TransCanada later reimbursed the state.
       The Nebraska attorney general's office argued that, among 
     other things, that the landowners didn't have legal standing 
     to bring the case.
       The high court ruled 4-3 that the plaintiffs had standing, 
     and four judges also deemed the law unconstitutional. The 
     remaining three declined to review the constitutional 
     arguments, arguing that the landowners lacked the legal 
     standing. A five-judge supermajority was needed to overturn 
     the law because it raised a constitutional question.
       Pipelines are generally reviewed by the Nebraska Public 
     Service Commission, but the siting law allowed then-Gov. Dave 
     Heineman to approve it after a review by the state's 
     environmental department. Heineman, a Republican, supported 
     the pipeline, and the environmental department is a part of 
     the governor's administration. Public Service Commission 
     members are elected.
       TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said offers to 
     landowners are set to expire on Friday, at which point the 
     company can begin eminent domain proceedings. Howard said the 
     company will continue to discuss deals with landowners who 
     are still negotiating in good faith. When warning letters 
     were sent in December, the company said it had voluntary 
     agreements from 84 percent of landowners along the route.
       The $8 billion pipeline would carry oil from Canada through 
     Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect 
     with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of 
     crude oil a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.
       Environmentalists and other opponents argue that any leaks 
     could contaminate water supplies, and that the project would 
     increase air pollution around refineries and harm wildlife. 
     But many Republicans, oil industry members and other backers 
     say that those fears are exaggerated and that the pipeline 
     would create jobs and ease American dependence on oil from 
     the Middle East. They note a U.S. State Department report 
     raised no major environmental objections.
  Ms. CANTWELL. So while I think this is very interesting that Congress 
is trying to expedite a process here by which the TransCanada pipeline 
is approved and the Nebraska Supreme Court made a decision basically on 
standing and had four of the seven justices say that this was 
unconstitutional--what the legislature did in trying to take away the 
public interest standard--this company is not waiting one second to say 
that property owners who never got the public interest standard met are 
going to get short-shrifted again and they are just going to go ahead. 
So I don't see why Congress is trying to help a special interest hurry 
and make a decision when they are not trying to give any landowner the 
benefit of a process or give landowners the ability to negotiate. They 
are just going to go ahead with eminent domain.
  So it is a very interesting tale we are going to talk a lot more 
about in the ensuing days about all the special attempts that 
TransCanada has done to try move ahead with this pipeline without 
following due process.
  As I noted earlier this morning I found it very interesting that at 
the very time the State Department was saying to TransCanada that their 
current proposal goes through an aquifer and really should go somewhere 
else, TransCanada was looking for support in Congress to go ahead and 
approve the pipeline through the aquifer by saying the State Department 
had to approve it. Clearly, here is somebody who just wants this 
pipeline no matter what, no matter where, and is going to use every 
attempt to not follow the rules. So we hope that we will have a very 
healthy debate about why Congress shouldn't be entering into this kind 
of special interest deal on behalf of this company.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Congratulating the North Dakota state University Bison On Winning The 
   2014 NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision Title Game

  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to make a number of points in 
regards to the Keystone XL pipeline approval bill, the legislation we 
are currently considering. But before I do so, I am planning to submit 
a resolution on behalf of the North Dakota State University Bison who 
won their fourth national championship on Saturday against the Illinois 
State Redbirds. It was a spirited and wonderful game in Frisco, Texas.
  I know, Madam President, that you had a team that was in the hunt, so 
to speak, and played a tremendous game in New Hampshire against the 
Illinois State Redbirds. It is a testament to the quality of the teams 
in the FCS championship, the Division I playoff series. Teams such as 
the University of New Hampshire had a tremendous year of outstanding 
coaching and great student athletes.
  I watched the game between the Illinois State Redbirds and the 
University of New Hampshire. It was a fantastic game that went right 
down to the wire. It just speaks to the fact that there are excellent 
teams in this division and tremendous athletes. A lot of teams had 
great seasons. So I certainly want to begin by commending all the teams 
that were in the playoffs, including our opponent in the championship 
game, the Illinois State Redbirds. They did a great job.
  But North Dakota State University, the coaches, everybody on staff, 
the leadership of the North Dakota State University and these student 
athletes had just a fantastic year. So I want to congratulate them. 
Four years in a row is unprecedented. Nobody has won the national 
championship in Division I football in their division in the playoffs 
in history. So this was certainty a great achievement.
  I am planning to submit the following resolution to honor the North 
Dakota State Bison. It says:

       Whereas, the North Dakota State University (referred to in 
     this preamble as

[[Page S191]]

     ``NDSU'') Bison won the 2014 National Collegiate Athletic 
     Association (referred to in this preamble as the ``NCAA'') 
     Division I Football Championship Subdivision title game in 
     Frisco, Texas, on January 10, 2015, in a hard fought victory 
     over the Illinois State Redbirds by a score of 29 to 27;
       Whereas, NDSU has won 12 NCAA football championships;
       Whereas, NDSU has now won four consecutive NCAA Football 
     Championships since 2011, an unprecedented achievement in 
     Football Championship Subdivision history;
       Whereas, the NDSU Bison have displayed tremendous 
     resilience and skill over the past four seasons, with 58 wins 
     to only three losses, including a streak of 33 consecutive 
     winning games;
       Whereas, Coach Chris Klieman and his staff, through their 
     dedication and talent, have continued the excellence of the 
     Bison football program;
       Whereas, the leadership of President Dean Bresciani and 
     Athletic Director Matt Larsen has helped bring both academic 
     and athletic excellence to NDSU;
       Whereas, an estimated 17,000 Bison fans attended the 
     Championship game--

  Including myself--a fantastic game--

     reflecting the tremendous spirit and dedication of the Bison 
     Nation that has helped propel the success of the team; and
       Whereas, the 2014 NCAA Division I Football Championship 
     Subdivision title was a victory not only for the NDSU 
     football team, but also for the entire State of North Dakota:
       Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1), congratulates the North Dakota State University 
     football team as the champion of the 2014 National Collegiate 
     Athletic Association Division I Football Championship 
     Subdivision title;
       (2), commends the North Dakota State University players, 
     coaches, and staff for their hard work and dedication; and
       (3), recognizes the students, alumni, and loyal fans for 
     supporting the Bison on the successful quest of the team to 
     capture another Division I trophy for North Dakota State 
     University.

  I will be entering that resolution into the Record to honor and 
recognize the team in a program that has done just an incredible job 
this year. I know how hard those student athletes worked. It is a 
privilege to honor them with this resolution and commend them on their 
outstanding achievement this year winning their fourth consecutive 
national championship.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Now I would like to shift to the continued discussion of the Keystone 
XL Pipeline approval legislation that is currently pending on the 
floor. I am pleased to say that we have reached agreement now to 
proceed to the bill. In fact, we will be voting on amendments--not this 
week. But we can at least tee up amendments this week, and we will be 
starting votes on these amendments beginning next week.
  That has been the idea all along--first, to advance to this bill; it 
is important energy infrastructure legislation--but also to have an 
open process to return to what we have referred to as regular order on 
the Senate floor in an effort to work truly in a more bipartisan way 
and to get the work of the Senate done for the American people.
  That is the idea with this energy legislation--to make sure we are 
having the debate so we give everybody the opportunity to come forward 
and to present their amendments. We will debate them. They can then get 
a vote. For the amendments that can command 60 votes--it takes a 
bipartisan vote to pass anything because neither party has 60 votes--it 
requires bipartisanship. Any amendments that can garner 60 votes will 
be added to the legislation, and I hope that fosters the best 
legislation possible and enables us to get our work done on behalf of 
the American people--not only on this bill but on other important 
legislation to help move our country forward as well.
  There are a number of arguments that have been made this afternoon by 
some of the critics of the bill, and while greatly respecting their 
right to come forward and present their opposition to the legislation 
and any criticisms they feel they want to present, I also want to take 
the opportunity to rebut a number of those. Of course, that is the 
whole focus and effort here in terms of the debate--to have this debate 
and hopefully convince people that what we have is good legislation. If 
we can make it better with amendments, great, but at the end of the 
day, we pass this legislation and get this project approved on behalf 
of the American people.
  It is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth, 
and it is about national security. It is a great place to start in this 
new Congress, where we are focused like a laser on growing our economy 
and creating jobs for the hard-working taxpayers and people of our 
country, for the middle class, for the folks out there working every 
day. And for those not working and looking for a job, let's find ways 
to make sure we get this economy going and that we get jobs for 
them. This is a great example. This is the largest shovel-ready 
project--at almost $8 billion--that we have, and it is ready to go. It 
doesn't cost one single penny of government money. It is privately 
financed, and it is all about creating the kind of business climate and 
powering the kind of investment that will help grow our economy.

  One of the discussion points I have been hearing is this whole issue 
of, well, this somehow is just for Canada and not the United States or 
that we are doing this for Canada. I will start with the premise that 
our closest friend and ally in the world is Canada, so the idea of 
working with Canada makes a lot of sense to me. They are our largest 
trading partner. We work with them all the time. We have a unique and 
wonderful relationship that very few countries have.
  So to start with this criticism that this is just for Canada and not 
for the United States, I am thinking: Yes, and it is a bad idea to work 
with your friends, why? It seems to me that that is a good selling 
point. If this is good for Canada, then great. I hope we are doing good 
things for Canada, and I hope they are doing good things for us. That 
is how friends and allies work together. The whole concept that somehow 
this is a bad idea is lost on me. To me it seems as though it is a 
positive when we can work together with Canada.
  The fact is it is not just good for Canada--it is good for Canada, 
but it is really good for the United States too, and that is the whole 
point. In that line of argument that it is somehow good for Canada and 
not good for the United States--the critics say it is good for Canada 
because they produce oil up here in Alberta, and they are going to move 
that oil down to our ports and they are going to export it. Well, that 
is not the case.
  Is it possible that some oil could be exported? Yes. But the reality 
is a lot of this oil is coming to our country and will be used in our 
country, and even more than that, it is not just Canadian oil. The 
argument that this is somehow just Canadian oil and it is going to be 
exported is wrong. It is wrong on both counts. I wish to take a minute 
to rebut that because that argument has been brought up a number of 
times.
  As a matter of fact, I believe it is the focus of one of the first 
amendments that has been offered by the good Senator from 
Massachusetts. He wants to include a provision that says none of the 
oil can be exported because it is all Canadian oil and it is all going 
to be exported. Well, on both counts, that is wrong. Oil from North 
Dakota and Montana, out of the Bakken formation--our State oil in North 
Dakota produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. We are second only to 
the State of Texas. But because we don't have enough pipelines, we have 
to move 700,000 barrels a day on rail.
  We are trying to move agricultural goods. We are the leader of 14 
different major agriculture commodities. We have all kinds of other 
products that we produce, as do the States in our region, which 
includes Minnesota, South Dakota, and Montana. But we have tremendous 
congestion on our rails because we are putting more and more oil on 
rail. We have 700,000 barrels a day going out on rail and growing as we 
continue to grow our production in this part of the country. So we need 
more pipelines.
  What you see on this diagram is the original Keystone Pipeline that 
was constructed and built when I was Governor of North Dakota, and this 
yellow shows the sister pipeline we are trying to build.
  As you can see, this goes right through our State, and the new 
pipeline goes right next to our State. The whole point is we want to 
put 100,000 barrels a day--at least for starters--of our light sweet 
Bakkan crude in this pipeline.
  It is not just moving Canadian oil, it is moving domestic oil as 
well. It is moving U.S. oil. When you hear that it is just going to 
move Canadian oil,

[[Page S192]]

that is already wrong. How about we stick to the facts? How about we 
make sure we foster real understanding? How about we tell people what 
is really going on here? It is not just Canadian oil, it is Canadian 
and it is U.S. oil.
  The whole point is this is the kind of infrastructure that helps us 
achieve North American energy security. What do I mean by that? I mean 
by the United States working with Canada, we can produce more energy 
than we consume, and that is energy security. That means we don't have 
to depend on importing it from OPEC, that means we don't have to depend 
on importing it from Venezuela. When push comes to shove, we produce 
more oil and energy than we consume. That is a national security issue.
  When you drive up to the pump today to fill up your car, take a look 
and check out the price at the pump. It is less than $2. It is about 
half of what it was maybe a year ago, right? That equates to $100 
billion to $125 billion in savings for American consumers. Why is that 
happening? Is it that OPEC decided: Hey, let's give America a Christmas 
present? Is it because Vladimir Putin decided: Hey, let's get some 
energy over to America? Is it because Venezuela said: Hey, let's drop 
the price at the pump in America? Why is that happening? The reason it 
is happening is because we are producing so much more energy in our 
country in places such as North Dakota and Texas and the Bakkan and in 
the Eagle Ford. We are producing more natural gas in places such as the 
Marcellus and Utica, and the shale across our country, and because we 
are getting more oil from Canada because we have more supply, that is 
bringing the price down. More supply puts downward pressure on prices.
  Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. A 60-cent drop in the price 
of gasoline translates from a $100 billion to $125 billion tax cut for 
the people of our great country, for the small businesses, and for all 
the industry sectors that rely on energy, and that is most of them, 
right? That is the benefit we are creating by working together with 
Canada to produce more energy. It truly is more energy, lower prices 
for our energy, making us more competitive in a global economy, it is 
jobs for our people, economic growth, and it is a national security 
issue. It truly is a national security issue.

  Back to the point it is all going to be exported. First, it is not 
just Canadian oil. It is Canadian and U.S. oil, and I have gone through 
that.
  On the issue that it will be exported--they say, look, the pipeline 
goes from Hardisty in Alberta all the way down to these ports--Port 
Arthur. So that must mean it is all going to be exported. No. It is 
going from where it was produced to where it is refined and consumed. 
It comes from Hardisty, down to Steele City, and from there it can go 
to Patoka, IL. Why? Because there are refineries there and pipeline 
networks where it can go into the eastern part of the United States.
  It also goes to Cushing, OK--a huge pipeline network that goes all 
over the country, and it is based out of Cushing, OK, so it can go 
almost anywhere.
  The idea that building a pipeline is somehow an unusual or difficult 
thing to do--well, let's take a look at all the pipelines we have 
moving oil and gas around this country. The whole point is when you 
bring that pipeline through, you can interface with all of these 
networks so you can move it all over the country.
  For somebody to look at this and say: Oh, gee, look, because it goes 
from Hardisty down to here, it will all be exported. Come on, let's 
tell people what is really going on. There is the pipeline. It can go 
through many different routes and across the country. Don't just take 
my word for it because I am an advocate for the pipeline. People say: 
Well, he is pushing for the pipeline, and that is what he says. Fine. 
Let's go to what the State Department and the Department of Energy say. 
Let's go to the Obama administration's State Department and the 
Department of Energy and see what they say.
  Here in January of 2014, the State Department determined in its final 
environmental impact statement--

       [The export of the oil] appears unlikely to be economically 
     justified for any significant durable trade given transport 
     costs and market conditions.

  That was in the final environmental impact statement, section 
1.4.6.2. I will repeat that statement.

       [The export of oil] appears unlikely to be economically 
     justified for any significant durable trade given transport 
     costs and market conditions.

  So there we have the State Department and the environmental impact 
statement saying they are going to use the oil in the United States.
  How about the Department of Energy? In its report, the Department of 
Energy determined that it does not make economic sense to ship the oil 
to China. Furthermore, any export would need to obtain a Department of 
Commerce license before it is exported. I am not saying that none of it 
will be exported, I am saying that according to the State Department 
and the Department of Energy, it will be used in this country, and 
before it could be exported, you would have to have the Secretary of 
Commerce say it is OK for some of that oil to be exported. The Obama 
administration would have to approve exporting some of that crude 
before it could be exported.
  Furthermore, refiners that have contracts with TransCanada, which is 
Valero, have publicly confirmed that the oil that will be shipped 
through the Keystone XL Pipeline will be used for U.S. domestic needs. 
The United States retains 99 percent of all crude within the country 
and uses 97 percent of the gasoline refined in the country. A large 
majority--over 90 percent--of transportation fuel refined in the United 
States is for use in the United States.
  Look, these are global markets. I am not saying that there is none 
that would be exported, but my point is we are going to use this oil in 
the United States, and if we don't build this pipeline, then one of two 
things will happen--again, according to the environmental impact 
statement that was done by the Obama administration.
  If you can't build a pipeline, then it is going to have to be railed 
into this country, the same way I got done telling you that we rail 
700,000 barrels a day out of my State of North Dakota. We will have to 
rail more of the domestic crude that I mentioned out of here, 
continuing the congestion on the rails, and we will have 1,400 railcars 
a day moving that oil because you can't move it on the pipeline. All of 
those locomotives produce emissions, right? We will either have to have 
1,400 cars a day railing it or you are not going to build the pipeline 
and Canada is going to build pipelines to the west coast of Canada, and 
then they will load it on tankers and take it to China, thereby 
producing more greenhouse gas emissions, and refining the oil in 
Chinese refineries with higher greenhouse gas emissions.
  And, by the way, since we are not getting that oil, we will have to 
bring more in from OPEC for us, right?
  Under this scenario where they build the pipeline to the west coast 
and send it to China, how much of it will come to us then? Then it is 
all exported, isn't it?
  This argument that some of it might get exported, then the converse 
of that--or the result is to say, we don't want the pipeline because 
some of it might get exported. So, in essence, we blocked it from 
coming here, and so then it will all be exported and it all goes to 
China. Wow. That makes sense? Let's see, because some of it might get 
exported, then let's make sure we don't have the pipeline so make sure 
it all gets exported, but we don't want it exported.
  What am I missing here? Where is the common sense? When push comes to 
shove and we are not in a situation like we are right now where prices 
are low, when prices start going back up based on supply and demand and 
all of those things, or when there is conflict in the world that 
disrupts supplies, would we rather have control of that supply of oil 
from Canada or would we rather make sure it all goes to China?
  When push comes to shove and we need the energy, when prices are 
high, or when there is volatility or conflict in the world, do we want 
to make sure that all of those resources are going to China and then we 
can go hat in hand and ask them for it, or would we rather have control 
of it? That is why I wanted to take a few minutes to rebut the argument 
that, oh, gee, it is all going to be exported rather than a more 
commonsense view of, well, gee, some might be exported because it is a 
global economy, but if it is, they have to get the Obama 
administration's approval to do it.

[[Page S193]]

  If you don't build the pipeline, you are either going to have it all 
come by railcar or you are not going to have any of it, and 100 percent 
of it will be exported because we would force all of it to go to China. 
Under any of those scenarios, you are still producing the energy up 
there, aren't you?
  I will shift to the environmental argument. I will go back to this 
chart. There is another argument I wish to rebut for a minute. The 
argument is, oh, gee, all of this might be exported so we don't want 
the pipeline because we are trying to prevent the oil sands from being 
produced because of the environmental aspect of greenhouse gas.
  As I just pointed out, even without the pipeline, the oil is still 
going to be produced. Again, this is not me saying that. Go back to the 
environmental impact statement. Go back to the science. Go back to the 
report done not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but 
five times by the Department of State and their environmental impact 
statements--three draft statements, two final environmental impact 
statements, five different studies. What they say is the oil is still 
going to be produced so if we don't build the pipeline, our emissions 
are going to be higher from greenhouse gases than if we build the 
pipeline. Why is that? I went through some of that already. No. 1, we 
will have it all moved through railcars, which produce more greenhouse 
gases than a pipeline--1,400 rail cars a day. It will be shipped to 
China, which will refine it in refineries that have higher emissions 
than ours. And we are going to have to haul it in from other places 
such as Venezuela. So we have greenhouse gas emissions from the ships 
as well. So the reality is--and the environmental impact statements 
show it--that we have lower greenhouse gas emissions with the pipeline 
than we would without it.
  As we have talked about on the floor many times, everybody is 
entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own 
facts. Those are the facts as laid out very clearly, as I say, in not 
one or two environmental impact statements but in three draft 
environmental impact statements and two final environmental impact 
statements.
  The other point I wish to make on the environmental aspect is that we 
produce oil in California and we import oil from Venezuela that has 
greenhouse gas emissions that are as high or higher than oil produced 
in the Canadian oil sands.
  Another point I wish to make is that Canada is working to reduce both 
the greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental footprint of their 
production in the oil sands. Since 1990, on a per barrel basis, in 
Alberta, Canada, the producers of oil from the oil sands have reduced 
the greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent--almost a third. So that is 
a 28-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in oil sands oil 
from 1990 to the present on a per barrel basis. So they have reduced it 
by almost a third, and they are continuing to find ways through better 
drilling techniques, through cogeneration, and through other efforts to 
improve the environmental stewardship of what they are doing there. 
That is the way it works. Rather than blocking investment in needed 
infrastructure, rather than blocking investment in new technologies, we 
need to encourage that investment because when we encourage that 
investment in our country and work with Canada, we produce more energy 
more cost-effectively with better environmental stewardship. When we 
block it, we don't get that technology, we don't get the energy, and we 
don't get the improvements in environmental stewardship.
  That is the way we should be approaching this. We should be 
encouraging the investment.
  As I said before, not one penny of government money is expended on 
the pipeline. We are simply allowing a project to go forward. Private 
companies invested almost $8 billion in the largest shovel-ready 
project we have after the project has been held up by the Federal 
Government for more than 6 years--held up after every single State--all 
six States--every single one of them has approved it. But here we are 6 
years later and the Federal Government is saying to those States that 
even though every single one of those States on the route has approved 
it, even though they want it, even though all the States will realize 
hundreds of millions of dollars in cash revenues and benefits not only 
from construction but from property taxes and other sources of revenue 
in building the project, and even though it won't cost the government 
one single penny, the Federal Government said no. Even though we have 
studied it for 6 years, that is not good enough. Even though in poll 
after poll 65 percent of the American people want it built, even though 
Americans want energy security here at home and in Canada, even though 
a bipartisan majority in the House and in this Senate support it, the 
President says: No, that is not good enough somehow. We would rather 
keep importing oil from OPEC.
  That has to be music to OPEC's ears. Oh, good, the Americans aren't 
going to get serious and work with Canada and make sure they are energy 
secure. They are going to keep getting oil from OPEC.
  That has to be music to China's ears. They want it. They are trying 
to buy these oil resources in Canada. They are not only trying to buy 
the oil. They are trying to buy the resources in Canada. But last I 
checked, we work for the American people, and the American people want 
energy security.
  So we have an absolute obligation to make sure that as we are talking 
about this project, we are talking about the facts. We are not talking 
about our opinions. I know we are striving for clarity and an 
understanding of what is really going on.
  When it comes to the environmental aspects and when it comes to 
whether the energy is going to be exported or used here, when it comes 
to the economic impact, when it comes to the job creation, and to all 
of these different issues, let's debate them. If somebody has an 
amendment we can add, let's debate that, too. It needs to get 60 votes. 
But let's make sure we are fostering understanding of what is really 
going on here so we talk about climate change and that type of issue 
that is relative to this project. Let's make sure we are clear. Let's 
make sure we are telling the people that this project will have no 
significant environmental impact, according to the U.S. State 
Department--the Obama administration's State Department. According to 
the Obama U.S. State Department--the Obama administration--according to 
their environmental impact statements, including three draft statements 
and two final statements done over more than 6 years: no significant 
environmental impact. Then when we talk about greenhouse gas emissions 
and the oil that comes from the oil sands, let's be clear that this is 
not just Canadian oil. It is also domestic oil from our country, from 
States such as North Dakota and Montana. Let's also talk about how the 
investment in new technologies is reducing the environmental footprint 
and reducing the greenhouse gas for oil sands production. There has 
been a reduction of 28 percent in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 
in the oil sands because of their investment in new technologies, in 
better drilling techniques, as well as their efforts going forward.
  I do believe we are going to have officials from Alberta and from 
Canada coming during the next weeks to talk about what else they are 
going to do to make additional improvements in terms of environmental 
stewardship and the efforts they are undertaking to reduce further the 
environmental footprint and the greenhouse gas impact of the energy 
they are producing.
  So with that, I wish to close. This really is an opportunity to work 
with our good friend Canada on a project of great mutual benefit, and 
that is energy security for North America and energy security for our 
country as well as for Canada. I think this is a project Americans very 
much want.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to come forward to engage in this debate 
and, at the end of the day, let's get this done for the American 
people.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is my first speech to the Senate.
  It is interesting because as a child I would read about how the 
Senate was a great deliberative body. I would read of the debates in 
which issues were discussed that changed the course of our country's 
history. The key issue here is that it is a deliberative body.

[[Page S194]]

  I was in the Senate energy committee the other day and one of the 
opponents of this Keystone bill said we need to be guided by science. I 
like that thought. We are not to be guided by our prejudice. We are not 
to be guided by what we want to be the case. We are to be guided by the 
facts, because just as when I was a kid and I would read about how this 
great deliberative body would decide issues that would then decide our 
country's future, this Keystone bill decides the future for many 
issues.
  With that said, let me also say that I just came over from the House 
of Representatives and one of the nice things I had the privilege to do 
was to enter a Keystone bill quite similar to this one, which passed. 
In the course of that being introduced, debated, passed, et cetera, I 
heard the arguments of those who were opposed to the Keystone bill, and 
I have been able to think about them.
  I am pleased to say I think there actually is common ground. If the 
American people want the Senate to work together to come up with 
solutions on a bipartisan basis, and if we are to be guided by science 
and the facts and not by our prejudice, and if what we deliberate will 
help determine the future of our country and the many families in our 
country, I am pleased to say that we have common ground.
  The opposition is concerned about climate change, increased carbon 
emissions, the amount of oil that might be spilled, whether this 
encourages the use of fossil fuels, and are the jobs being created 
worth being created? We can address these factually, not by prejudice 
but by using, actually, President Obama's own State Department 
information. With that kind of source--it is President Obama's State 
Department providing the answer to these questions. So let's go through 
them.
  First, the President's own State Department says that building the 
pipeline will decrease carbon emissions, there will be less oil 
spilled. By the way, it will not only create jobs, but it will also 
save workers' lives. We are deliberating a bill here which, according 
to President Obama's State Department, will save lives. That is truly 
changing the future of somebody.
  In detail, on page 34 of President Obama's State Department report, 
it says that the pipeline would have no significant environmental 
impact. It will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 to 42 
percent relative to not building the pipeline at all.
  President Obama's own State Department also acknowledges that these 
oil sands are going to be developed whether we build the pipeline or 
not. If they are not piped to the gulf coast of Louisiana and Texas to 
be processed, they will be sent to overseas markets such as China, 
creating Chinese jobs instead of American jobs.
  I think it is also safe to say--we read about how in China people 
can't see the blue sky. Their environmental standards are far more lax 
than ours. If it goes to the gulf coast, I can tell my colleagues I 
just came from Louisiana yesterday and I saw blue skies.
  With all of our environmental standards, this will be processed in 
such a way which is most environmentally friendly. If it goes to China, 
there will be pollutants put out in the air which the jet stream will 
blow over the United States. If we are to be guided by science and not 
by prejudice, the science would say we should build the pipeline to 
allow the oil sands to be processed in the United States.
  I heard one person say that he would be for the pipeline if he was 
sure the oil would not be exported. I don't quite know how to respond 
to that because if we don't build the pipeline it will absolutely be 
exported. It will be exported to China, and then quite likely we will 
buy the refined products that the Chinese then produce. On the other 
hand, again referencing President Obama's State Department, they have 
said that if we pipe that oil to the gulf coast, our gulf coast 
refineries are uniquely equipped to process that oil in an 
environmentally safe way, and so it is unlikely that it will be 
exported. I will add to that, according to the World Trade Organization 
guidelines, if we accept an import from another country, we cannot not 
export it should there be higher value.
  But I return to what President Obama's State Department said, which 
is that the gulf coast refineries' unique ability to refine this in an 
environmentally sensitive way means that despite World Trade 
Organization restrictions, it is unlikely that it will be exported.
  There are other benefits as well. It is clear that it will diversify 
our energy security. Instead of buying our oil from the Middle East or 
from countries like Venezuela who don't care for us--in fact, use the 
money we pay them in some cases to finance terrorism--it will come from 
a trusted neighbor who will spend that money that we pay Canada for 
this commodity back into the North American economy creating jobs 
indirectly in the United States that otherwise would not be, which 
leads us to the question, are these jobs worth having? In a word, the 
answer is absolutely. Now, we all know that creating better jobs for 
American families is what should be the Congress's priority.
  For 6 years we have been talking about building the Keystone XL 
Pipeline and we have, if you will, postponed the creation of these 
jobs.
  Let's just look at it. Refineries in my State of Louisiana and along 
the gulf coast would benefit because it would be roughly 100,000 
barrels a day of crude oil transported to us. In Louisiana up to 12 
percent of that oil would end up in our refineries, more than $1 
billion in revenue to our economy. It would create over 40,000 
construction jobs over a 1-to-2 year period.
  Some will oppose this and say these jobs only last for a week or two. 
I was outside the energy committee hearing room and there were a couple 
of fellows from trade unions who stopped me. They said, We need these 
jobs.
  I said, what about the argument of the other side that the jobs will 
only last 2 weeks?
  Those are the nature of our jobs. If you bring a master welder in, he 
or she will do their job for 2 weeks and then move on to another. But 
for our union members to get their union benefits, they have to work a 
certain number of hours per quarter or per month--I forget the unit of 
time--but this will allow them to meet that minimum requirement in 
order to continue to receive their union benefits.
  I can tell you the crafts unions think that these jobs are worth 
having. These are well-paying jobs with good benefits. They are not the 
service sector in which hours might have been reduced from 40 to 30 
hours a week. These are great jobs and great benefits.
  The American people want Washington to work together. As I mentioned 
earlier, I introduced and passed Keystone legislation in the House of 
Representatives. Keystone has become a symbol for North American energy 
independence. Approving this pipeline is not the final step in this 
independence but it is the next step. It is a good step.
  The case for approving this pipeline and other energy infrastructure 
projects is clear. I encourage my colleagues to join in approving the 
Keystone XL Pipeline and putting this debate to rest because I truly 
believe we have common ground, if we are to be guided by the science 
and the facts and not by prejudice. We know from President Obama's 
State Department that it reduces carbon emission, it will decrease the 
amount of oil spilled, it has minimal effect upon the environment, it 
will save the lives of the workers while strengthening our national 
security and enhancing our energy independence and creating 40,000 
American jobs. That is why more than 60 percent of Americans support 
this bill. It is a jobs bill, a national security bill, and it is a 
bill which should be passed.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana, he indicated this was his maiden speech on the floor of 
the Senate. If that is so, I urge him to make additional speeches. I 
don't think I ever heard a more concise summary with regard to the 
pipeline issue than he just gave. We can certainly see why the people 
of Louisiana sent him here. It was perfect, it was cogent, and it was 
short. It was interesting. He had a bill very similar to this and 
Senator Cassidy passed it in the House and he is now in the Senate. We 
hope that with enough debate we can have truly

[[Page S195]]

a bipartisan effort with comity. This is a new beginning. We are so 
happy to have the Senator here. I thank him for his remarks.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I thank the Senator from Kansas.
  (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 168 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are getting close to a time when we are 
going to be able to see a reality here that we have been talking 
about--the Keystone Pipeline--for a long period of time now. When I go 
back to Oklahoma, people say: If you have something that no one is 
against who does not have a particular institutional reason to be 
against it--everyone is for it. When you see the jobs--no single thing 
we have dealt with in the last 3 or 4 years that I can recall has 
talked about 42,000 new jobs that otherwise are not going to be there, 
good-paying jobs.
  I admit that I am biased a little bit because being from Oklahoma--
Cushing, OK, is right in the center of the State. It is the hub of all 
of the pipelines going through America. But I see that there is really 
no logical reason--I heard someone on the floor just a few minutes ago 
saying: All those dirty oil sands up in Alberta are going to be--there 
is a great environmental risk from that. Yet they know full well that 
if for some reason the people who are opposed to fossil fuel 
altogether--such as President Obama--are successful, they are still 
going to produce that stuff up there.
  China is chomping at the bit right now because China has a great need 
for the very ingredients in the pipeline that we do here in this 
country. They already have talked about transportation to the western 
part of Canada to get it to China. So it is going to happen. In fact, 
you could argue, if you are concerned about some of the environmental 
problems, if they do exist, they would be greater if China did it than 
if we did it. For example, China does not have any emission controls on 
all of the stuff that we are talking about the way we do in this 
country.
  I think there are some things that are factual. I think everyone is 
aware of it. One is that President Obama has had a constant war on 
fossil fuels since the time before he was even President of the United 
States. When we look at what he has done and how he has committed--and 
we have heard all of those quotes from when he was talking to the far-
left environmental groups, the Tom Steyers and others like him who have 
put in the money to fight fossil fuels. He is one who is solidly 
opposed and doing everything in his power to keep us from finishing the 
pipeline.
  Having said that--I will put the chart up on what happened just a 
year ago in my State of Oklahoma. The only visit the President has made 
to my State of Oklahoma was about a year ago--2 years ago. He came in 
and was--in the background there, that is a picture of him in Cushing, 
OK, and those are the barrels--this is what is taking place right now 
in Cushing.
  He was talking about--his quote there, as you can read:

       I am directing my administration to make this project a 
     priority--

  He was talking about the Keystone Pipeline--

     to go ahead and to get it done.

  Well, he made that statement and he came down to hold that meeting in 
Cushing, OK, to try to make them believe he was actually for a 
pipeline. He went on to say that he was going to make sure that he was 
not going to do anything to keep the pipeline from going on further 
south.
  Now, let's get the picture here. You have Cushing, OK, which is right 
in the middle of the United States, and the pipeline will continue to 
go south to the Texas coast. Well, he said he was not going to do 
anything to stop that. There is a good reason for this; that is, he 
cannot. He does not have any jurisdiction. That did not cross an 
international boundary. The borders--the international border that it 
has crossed is in Canada. So that is the area where he is still to this 
day doing all he can to keep that from being a reality. The southern 
leg could be finished and he cannot do anything about that.

  I mentioned Tom Steyer. I want to put up that chart so people know--
in case they have not been introduced. He is probably a very fine 
person. He has a strong commitment to try to stop fossil fuels. He is 
the one who made the statement back before the November elections that 
he was going to raise $100 million--put in $50 million of his own money 
and raise $50 million in addition to that--and put it in eight 
campaigns--I think we know probably which campaigns they were--to see 
whether he could resurrect the issue of global warming and whether he 
could stop the pipeline.
  Well, all that happened back then. I think it is important that 
people understand that he was not able to--he was willing to put his 
millions of dollars in, but he could not raise the 50. So instead of 
that, he put $70 million of his money in the race. This is not me 
talking; this is all--he is very proud of it. Frankly, I appreciate the 
fact that he is not trying to hide what he is doing. I know he has some 
political interests. I know he has a commitment to try to stop the 
pipeline. I am not sure what that is based on other than just the 
people to whom he caters.
  But nonetheless he has a great deal of influence with this 
administration. It was reported a couple of weeks ago that he had 
visited the Obama White House 14 times--that is as of that time--which 
led a member of the watchdog group Public Citizen to say, ``Tom Steyer 
has not just got the ear of the President, but he clearly has the 
President's attention.'' Again, that is this watchdog committee making 
that statement.
  So we are looking at it now. We know that the White House meetings 
were often with President Obama's counselor and chief environmental 
advisor, John Podesta. We remember John Podesta from the Clinton 
administration. He has been a lobbyist now for quite some time. He is 
very actively involved in this issue. Reports have also surfaced that 
Steyer and Podesta met with billionaire liberal activist George Soros 
just days after Steyer made his commitment.
  Anyway, that is behind us now. That affected the election, there is 
no question about that; however, they still lost. If I am guessing 
right on the races he was involved in, there is not one of those who 
won. Republicans took over 10 seats. That was quite a good year. So 
maybe he wasted several million dollars. But when we looked at it and 
if you think about what he has done to fossil fuels, that has been his 
war.
  Twice today already I have heard people on the floor saying: Well, 
look at the success the oil industry has had under the Obama 
administration. Well, I have to suggest that it has been in spite of 
the Obama administration. The proof is very easy. The revolution that 
is going on right now within the oil industry is one that has been very 
successful. On private land and on State land, the amount of production 
since Obama has been in office has actually increased by 61 percent. 
That is incredible.
  They say: Well, you must be really pro oil and gas because of that.
  In reality, all of that, 100 percent of that 61-percent increase has 
been on State and private land. On public land, the Federal land that 
he has control over, there has not be an increase of 61 percent or even 
6 percent. As a matter of fact, there has been a reduction of 6 
percent.
  So that is going on and it is all a part of this war that is taking 
place right now. I am very anxious to see how these votes turn out. I 
know that people, when they realize the number of jobs that are there, 
I get very excited about it, and I can't help but think we are going to 
be successful.
  I wish to mention though--I wasn't going to--a person whom I consider 
to be a very good friend is on the floor, and we have philosophically 
disagreed with each other about as much as any two people can; that is, 
the Senator from Vermont.
  He is sincere. He believes what he says. Yet some of the things he 
says I believe are wrong, but he believes

[[Page S196]]

them. I don't want to question whether he is telling what he believes 
is the truth--and others too.
  Another good friend of mine is the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Boxer. Frankly, I will miss her in the Senate. I understand she has 
announced her retirement.
  But nonetheless, on the issue they are talking about on global 
warming, I listen and I think: Where do they come up with this stuff?
  Because we know for a fact that many of the things that they talk 
about are not true. We keep hearing that 97 percent of the scientists 
are saying they believe CO2 is the cause of the catastrophic 
climate change, the world is coming to an end, and we are all going to 
die.
  This goes back to about 2002 when this became an issue. I will 
remember this for a long time because that was when the first bills 
were introduced. At that time everybody thought global warming was 
true. They were all going to try to do what they could to stop it.
  Frankly, at the very first I thought it must be true--that is what 
everybody said--until they did a study at the Wharton School. Some of 
their scientists, along with MIT, Charles Rivers and Associates, and 
others said what the cost would be. Because everybody was talking about 
the world coming to an end and they asked: But what is cost going to 
be?
  They all agreed on a range, and that range has not been refuted by 
anyone. The range is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. I 
immediately went back to see. Whenever I hear a big number, I go back 
to Oklahoma and I count the number of people, families who file a 
Federal income tax return and then I do my math.
  That would cost the average person and family in Oklahoma $3,000. So 
we think: All right. Are we sure we are going to get something for the 
$3,000?
  I will share with you--because a lot of people have forgotten this--
that Lisa Jackson was the first Administrator of the EPA who was 
appointed by President Obama. I asked her on the record, live on TV, in 
our committee, I said: Now let's assume we passed some of this 
legislation that puts in cap and trade or do it even by regulation. Is 
this going to stop CO2 emissions or lower CO2 
emissions worldwide?
  She said: No.
  These are her words, not mine. She said: The reason is the problem 
isn't here in the United States, the problem is in China, it is in 
India, it is in Mexico, and it is in other places.
  So in the event they were able to do that, then this would not lower 
it. In fact, we could use the same argument and say if we passed a cap 
and trade and did something--as they are talking about doing and we 
have heard on the floor today--then it would have the effect of not 
reducing but increasing CO2 emissions, and this is why.
  As we chase our manufacturing base overseas where they have to 
somehow find someplace where they can generate electricity, it will be 
in countries such as China and India where they don't have any of the 
restrictions in emissions.
  So even if someone is a believer that the world is coming to an end, 
that global warming is going to kill everybody and it is all due to 
man-made gas, if they truly believe that still, even in spite of that, 
it is not going to reduce worldwide emissions. I guess that is what 
they want to do, so we hear about the consensus.
  I remember at that time I made a speech on this floor questioning the 
science. I said: I assume there are scientists out there who are not a 
part of the IPCC--that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change--and that those scientists know better. They know what the 
reality is.
  I started getting phone calls. I got phone calls from scientists. On 
this chart are recognized scientists. There are 58.
  Richard Lindzen, I see his picture. He is a scientist at MIT. I think 
we could argue he would be in contention with the very best informed 
scientists.
  Richard Lindzen said:

       Controlling Carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control 
     carbon, you control life.

  Is that real, these people, or what? I remember how upset he was with 
Al Gore. Richard Lindzen made the statement again--this is him, not me, 
Richard Lindzen of MIT:

       To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough. To 
     do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.

  Now we have so many things that have happened. Just the other day--it 
wasn't long ago, I don't have the exact date--one of the universities 
did a survey of all the weathercasters, and they came back that 63 
percent of weathercasters believe any global warming that is occurring 
is the result of natural variation and not human activities.
  To say ``97 percent of scientists'' is just not true, but if you want 
to believe it badly enough you will. So we have a lot of information.
  Nature journal, which is a well-respected journal, in their 2013 
paper said that ``there is considerable uncertainty as to whether 
[increases in extreme climate variability] is occurring.
  Munich Reinsurance Company said: ``Global weather related disaster 
losses have declined by 25% as a proportion of GDP.''
  We have all these statements.
  The IPCC, they are the ones that are always being quoted, and it is a 
branch of the United Nations. That is where all this started and 
certainly it would enure to their benefit to have people believe that 
we have to look at some international organization such as the United 
Nations to protect us from all these droughts and all these things that 
they say are going to happen.
  We had another little thing happen recently. I only mention this 
because nobody has yet on the floor. I think everyone used to believe 
that everyone was already aware of it, but remember Climategate?
  Climategate was when they were having one of the big United Nations 
parties. It was going to be in Copenhagen. I remember a lot of our 
people went over there to tell the 191 countries that were 
participating that the United States was going to pass cap and trade, 
they were going to do all of these things.
  I went over at the very end of it, made my little talk, and assured 
them that in spite of the fact that President Obama had been there, 
Secretary Clinton at the time had been there and now-Secretary Kerry 
and all the rest of them--to say we are not going to be doing it in the 
United States of America. If anybody believes what they said, that we 
are going to pass cap and trade, we are not going to do it. They had 
tried it already. There were 35 Members--and at that time it was a much 
more liberal Senate than we have today--only 35 would actually vote for 
something like that.
  Incidentally, it was at that time when Climategate came up. 
Climategate was when they analyzed some of the things IPCC had said, 
and they had all these quotes and emails that totally debunked the 
credibility of IPCC. Still today they are talking about it.
  To give us an idea, Christopher Booker, with the UK Telegraph, said: 
``Worst scientific scandal of our generation.''
  That scandal he is talking about is to try to have them make people 
believe climate change is going to destroy the world.
  Clive Crook of the Financial Times said:

       The closed mindedness of these supposed men of science . . 
     . is surprising, even to me. The stink of intellectual 
     corruption is overpowering.

  Again we are talking about Climategate. Nobody talks about it any 
more, but still this is a fact.
  A prominent physicist from the IPCC, who is no longer there, said: 
``Climategate was a fraud on a scale I've never seen,'' talking about 
how they are rigging the information to try to cook the science.
  So we have all of these--this is Newsweek. It said: ``Once celebrated 
climate researchers feeling like the used car salesman.''
  ``Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations were taken 
straight out of unchecked activist brochures. . . . ''
  So these are the things that are going on, and I hope the people, as 
we develop this right now--we should be concentrating on the vote that 
is going to be coming up having to do with the pipeline. But as the 
committee of jurisdiction is looking at this, I can assure you we are 
going to be having hearings.
  One hearing we are going to have is to get some of the best 
scientists

[[Page S197]]

around to evaluate and to see what the truth is on the global warming 
issue.
  But in the meantime let's go back to the pipeline. I can't think of 
any argument against it that is overwhelming, and the mere fact that 
people say they don't like the Alberta sands or the production, it 
doesn't mean we in the United States of America are going to stop them 
from doing it because they will just do it and ship it to China.
  So we have a huge issue we are concerned with. I can't think of 
anything I have seen in the past 4 or 5 years that is going to be 
producing more jobs in America than this issue.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________